Summary

The debris of modern living frequently finds its way into our waterways and down to the ocean. Some enters as intentional or accidental discharges from ships and platforms; the rest is transported to the sea by rivers, wind, sewers, and beachgoers. Given the diversity and abundance of sources, the persistent nature of most plastics, and the ability of tides and currents to carry debris long distances, marine debris is a global concern that is likely to increase in the 21st century.

The impacts of debris are varied. In 1988, it was estimated that New Jersey lost between $379 million and $3.6 billion in tourism and other revenue as a result of debris washing ashore. Impacts to marine organisms are often difficult to quantify but are well known. Ingested marine debris, particularly plastics, has been reported in necropsies of birds, turtles, marine mammals, fish, and squid. There is concern that plastics are able to adsorb, concentrate, and deliver toxic compounds to animals that ingest them. Derelict fishing gear (DFG) and other debris are known to entangle and injure or kill marine organisms. Studies on population-scale impacts of entanglement and ingestion are few and largely inconclusive. Nevertheless, these effects are troubling and may represent unacceptable threats to some species. For example, entanglement of Hawaiian monk seals, the most endangered seal in the United States, is arguably the most significant impediment to that species’ recovery.

Marine debris regulation falls largely under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL) Annex V, which entered into force in 1988.

Citation Manager

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 1
Summary
T
he debris of modern living frequently finds its way into our water­
ways and down to the ocean. Some enters as intentional or accidental
discharges from ships and platforms; the rest is transported to the
sea by rivers, wind, sewers, and beachgoers. Given the diversity and
abundance of sources, the persistent nature of most plastics, and the
ability of tides and currents to carry debris long distances, marine debris
is a global concern that is likely to increase in the 21st century.
The impacts of debris are varied. In 1988, it was estimated that New
Jersey lost between $379 million and $3.6 billion in tourism and other
revenue as a result of debris washing ashore. Impacts to marine organisms
are often difficult to quantify but are well known. Ingested marine debris,
particularly plastics, has been reported in necropsies of birds, turtles,
marine mammals, fish, and squid. There is concern that plastics are able to
adsorb, concentrate, and deliver toxic compounds to animals that ingest
them. Derelict fishing gear (DFG) and other debris are known to entangle
and injure or kill marine organisms. Studies on population­scale impacts
of entanglement and ingestion are few and largely inconclusive. Never­
theless, these effects are troubling and may represent unacceptable threats
to some species. For example, entanglement of Hawaiian monk seals, the
most endangered seal in the United States, is arguably the most significant
impediment to that species’ recovery.
Marine debris regulation falls largely under the International Conven­
tion for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the
Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL) Annex V, which entered into force in 1988.

OCR for page 1
TACKLING MARINE DEBRIS IN THE ST CENTURY
This Convention places restrictions on the disposal of garbage, based on
garbage type and distance from land, and completely prohibits the dis­
posal of plastics at sea. Yet despite these and other prohibitions, 20 years
later, there are still large quantities of debris, including plastics, fouling
beaches and oceans.
STUDY ORIGIN
In 2006, Congress enacted the Marine Debris Research, Prevention,
and Reduction Act. Its stated purposes are to identify, determine sources
of, assess, reduce, and prevent marine debris and its impacts; revive
interagency coordination efforts through an Interagency Marine Debris
Coordinating Committee (IMDCC); and establish a federal clearinghouse
for marine debris information. Within this Act, Congress requested that
the National Research Council (NRC) undertake a study to assess the
effectiveness of international and national measures to prevent and
reduce marine debris and its impacts (see Box S.1 for the full statement
of task).
Given its charge, the committee that wrote this report focused its
efforts on the debris discharged at sea from a variety of maritime activities
BOX S.1
Statement of Task
An ad hoc committee will be formed to examine the effectiveness of inter­
national and national measures to prevent and reduce marine debris and its impact.
The committee will prepare a report that includes
A. An evaluation of international and domestic implementation of MARPOL
Annex V and the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.)
and identification of cost­effective, innovative approaches that could be taken
to improve implementation and compliance.
B. A review and assessment of technologies, strategies, and management prac­
tices for further reducing the impact of marine debris, including derelict fishing
gear. As part of this review, the committee will examine the International Mari­
time Organization’s Guidelines for the Implementation of Annex V of MARPOL
and recommend additional federal or international actions that could be taken
to further reduce debris and its impacts.
C. An evaluation of the role of floating fish aggregation devices in the generation of
marine debris and existing legal mechanisms to reduce impacts of such debris,
focusing on impacts in the Western Pacific and Central Pacific regions.
D. An overview of the existing federal statutes on marine debris (including land­
based sources) with a description of the responsibilities of the designated
federal agencies.

OCR for page 1
SUMMARY
including commercial shipping, fishing, recreational boating, and cruise
ships. However, because it is unrealistic and impractical to differentiate
between garbage discharged at sea and garbage that is discharged on land
but winds up in the sea, this report addresses the ocean­based sources in
the greater context of the marine debris problem. The committee recom­
mends many specific actions that can be taken by decision makers and
managers to spur a major paradigm shift toward a goal of “zero waste
discharge” into the marine environment that the committee believes will
be needed to effectively prevent and reduce marine debris. In addition,
the report provides a specific review of DFG and abandoned fish aggre­
gating devices (FADs).
Many of the recommendations in this report are not new. The ongoing
problems with MARPOL Annex V and its implementation and recom­
mendations for improvements were identified in the 1995 NRC report
Clean Ships, Clean Ports, Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes
at Sea and have been investigated in a number of other reports. However,
a review by the U.S. General Accounting Office in 2000 found that many
of these recommendations have not been fully implemented and some
have not been implemented at all, indicating an ongoing problem with
implementation of measures to prevent and reduce marine debris.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In its analysis, the committee identified four overarching areas in
which additional emphasis is needed to adequately address the marine
debris problem. Broadly, they center on (1) marine debris management,
leadership, and coordination; (2) information and metrics with which to
assess the effectiveness of current measures or efficiently direct future
efforts; (3) port reception facilities for shoreside disposal; and (4) the
distinct aspects of managing fishing gear as a source of marine debris.
Salient supporting recommendations are presented under each overarch­
ing recommendation; additional recommendations and the basis for all of
the findings and recommendations are included in Chapters 2, 3, and 4.
Management, Leadership, and Coordination
Despite measures to prevent and reduce marine debris, evidence
shows that the problem continues and will likely worsen. This indicates
that current measures for preventing and reducing marine debris are
inadequate. Responsibilities and resources are scattered across organi­
zations and management regimes, slowing progress on the problem.
Improvements will require changes to the regulatory regime as well as
nonregulatory incentives. At both the international and national levels,

OCR for page 1
TACKLING MARINE DEBRIS IN THE ST CENTURY
there needs to be better leadership, coordination, and integration of man­
dates and resources.
Overarching Recommendation: The United States and the interna­
tional maritime community should adopt a goal of zero discharge of
waste into the marine environment. The United States should take
the lead in the international arena in this effort and in coordinat­
ing regional management of marine debris with other coastal states.
IMDCC should develop a strategic plan for domestic marine debris
management. Performance measures should be developed by the
United States and the international maritime community that allow
for assessment of the effectiveness of current and future marine debris
prevention and reduction measures (page 86).
Regulatory Structure
Under MARPOL Annex V, discharges are permitted unless specifically
prohibited. This approach does not provide sufficient incentive to encour­
age innovation and adoption of source reduction and waste minimization
measures to prevent garbage pollution in the marine environment.
Recommendation: The U.S. delegation to the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) should, through the ongoing review process,
advocate that IMO amend MARPOL Annex V to include a general
prohibition on discharge of garbage at sea with limited exceptions
based on specific vessel operating scenarios and adequacy of shore­
side reception facilities. In addition, the U.S. delegation should request
that IMO review the Guidelines for the Implementation of Annex V of
MARPOL and, where transferrable, amend MARPOL Annex V to
include waste minimization and source reduction concepts from the
Guidelines into mandatory requirements for vessels, such as within
garbage management plan requirements. The United States and other
parties to MARPOL Annex V should incorporate similar requirements
into their domestic regulations for vessels engaged in both interna­
tional and domestic trade (page 61).
Leadership and Coordination
Although Congress has charged federal agencies with addressing
the marine debris problem and has called for interagency coordina­
tion, leadership and governance remain diffuse and ineffective. Current
mitigation efforts are episodic and crisis driven. There is a need for a
reliable, dedicated funding stream to support mitigation efforts and

OCR for page 1
SUMMARY
a national strategy and framework for identifying priorities for removal
of marine debris.
Recommendation: IMDCC or Congress should clearly designate a
lead agency to expand cooperative marine debris programs, includ­
ing but not limited to land­based marine debris, derelict fishing gear,
shipborne waste, and abandoned vessels. IMDCC should develop a
national strategy and national standards and priorities for dealing
with all elements of marine debris. The strategic plan should include
a clear identification of lead agencies, an implementation schedule,
and performance benchmarks. In addition, IMDCC should identify
funding mechanisms and reliable funding streams to support marine
debris mitigation activities (pages 78 and 85).
Achieving Zero Discharge
There is a need to focus additional attention on potential waste before
and after it reaches the ship. Zero discharge, source reduction, and waste
minimization practices have been implemented in industrial settings ashore
for a number of years. Some vessels have successfully adopted zero or mini­
mal discharge practices based on these successful shoreside models.
Recommendation: The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), in coordination
with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), should promul­
gate best management practices that reflect the maximum practicable
extent to which ships can operate without the need to dispose of
garbage at sea. Development of these best management practices
should be based on successful zero discharge, source reduction, and
waste minimization practices, coupled with an understanding of the
technical and financial abilities of different vessel types to retain dif­
ferent forms of waste. IMDCC should support the adoption of vol­
untary zero waste discharge standards and implementation of these
best management practices to achieve that goal. EPA should take the
lead in coordinating with IMDCC to work with academia, industry,
and nongovernmental organizations to develop industry standards
and guidelines for source reduction, reuse, and recycling for solid
wastes that are utilized and generated during normal ship operations
(page 80).
Information and Metrics for Assessing Effectiveness
Although there is clear evidence that marine debris is a problem, there
has not been a coordinated or targeted effort to thoroughly document

OCR for page 1
TACKLING MARINE DEBRIS IN THE ST CENTURY
and understand its sources, fates, and impacts. Mechanisms for objective
evaluation are needed to judge the efficacy of management and mitiga­
tion measures; yet metrics for this evaluation are lacking. This confounds
the ability to prioritize mitigation efforts and to assess the effectiveness
of measures that have been implemented.
Overarching Recommendation: IMDCC should, through planning
and prioritization, target research to understand the sources, fates,
and impacts of marine debris. It should support the establishment of
scalable and statistically rigorous protocols that allow monitoring at a
variety of temporal and spatial scales. These protocols should contain
evaluative metrics that allow an assessment of progress in marine
debris mitigation. The United States, through leadership in the inter­
national arena, should provide technical assistance and support for
the establishment of additional monitoring and research programs
worldwide (page 47).
Research
Diverse research has been conducted on marine debris; however,
there is no overall needs assessment available to guide this research. As
a result, research completed is rarely integrated at the regional, national,
international, or even local level. Therefore, there is little opportunity for
expanding the understanding of marine debris by fitting these individual
activities into a congruous whole.
Recommendation: An information needs assessment should be con­
ducted at the national level by IMDCC with input from stakeholders.
A detailed national marine debris research priorities plan should be
developed from the results. This research plan should direct future
federal funding of a suite of marine debris studies that, when taken
together, will provide a comprehensive characterization of the marine
debris problem. Additional studies are needed to assess the effec­
tiveness of measures to prevent and reduce marine debris and to
provide useful guidance to managers and decision makers for debris
mitigation. IMDCC should sponsor and facilitate research in debris
abundance and fluxes, and ecological and socioeconomic impacts of
marine debris (pages 41 and 44).
Monitoring and Data Management
Well­designed and statistically rigorous longitudinal marine debris
monitoring programs are needed at a variety of spatial and temporal

OCR for page 1
SUMMARY
scales. However, standardization of protocols and databases is necessary
to ensure that the results of various surveys are comparable.
Recommendation: Long­term marine debris monitoring programs
should be established by IMDCC (for the United States) and appro­
priate international organizations such as the United Nations Envi­
ronment Programme (for global monitoring). These programs should
allow for statistically valid analysis of marine debris quantities and
trends as a metric of the effectiveness of measures to prevent and
reduce marine debris. To the extent practical, these programs should
adopt a suite of common design characteristics and protocols to facili­
tate cross comparisons and meta­analyses. The marine debris infor­
mation clearinghouse should be given high priority. It should be
housed and maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) but available to the public and researchers at
large. Data generated by federally funded research should be submit­
ted to this clearinghouse in a timely manner (pages 45 and 47).
Enforcement and Compliance Data
Forensic analysis of enforcement and compliance information is a
necessary tool for evaluating the effectiveness of the implementation of
MARPOL Annex V; however, there is no comprehensive system in place
for collecting and analyzing information for this purpose at either the
domestic or the international level.
Recommendation: USCG, in coordination with IMDCC, should
develop a program to analyze the effectiveness of domestic regu­
lations to reduce marine debris. Where feasible, it should utilize
recordkeeping, enforcement, and other data that are already being
collected and should investigate additional metrics that may be useful
in measuring effectiveness. The U.S. delegation should recommend
that IMO, in its ongoing review of MARPOL Annex V, incorporate
this program into a global analysis of the effectiveness of MARPOL
Annex V (page 83).
Port Reception Facilities
To prevent the discharge of waste at sea, ships must have the ability
and incentives to properly dispose of waste onshore at port reception
facilities. The lack of understanding of vessel waste streams and the
inadequacy of port reception facilities to accept and properly manage
vessel waste is a serious impediment to the prevention and reduction of

OCR for page 1
TACKLING MARINE DEBRIS IN THE ST CENTURY
marine debris, including DFG. Ships continue to face shoreside disposal
challenges at some berths in countries that have formally communicated
the availability of adequate reception facilities.
Overarching Recommendation: To achieve the goal of zero discharge,
ships need to be able to discharge their waste at ports and should
have incentives (or at least they should not face disincentives) to do
so. Domestically, USCG should establish minimum qualitative and
quantitative standards for port adequacy, provide technical assistance
for ports to achieve standards, encourage ports to provide incentives
to vessel operators for discharging their waste ashore, and ensure
that there are adequate reception facilities and alternative disposal
options (see Appendix E) for waste fishing gear. Internationally, the
U.S. delegation to IMO should exert its leadership in the ongoing
MARPOL Annex V review process to ensure that similar amendments
are incorporated into Annex V (page 86).
Regulatory Structure
While parties to MARPOL Annex V are required to ensure adequate
port reception facilities, the standards for adequacy are unclear. Although
the Guidelines for the Implementation of Annex V of MARPOL provides addi­
tional guidance, it does not establish minimum standards.
Recommendation: The U.S. delegation to IMO should advocate that
MARPOL Annex V be amended to include explicit qualitative and
quantitative standards for adequate port reception facilities, and that
IMO provide assistance to achieve these standards. Port managers
and users should be included in the development of clearer stan­
dards. In addition, the U.S. delegation should encourage IMO to
incorporate incentives for proper onshore waste disposal in these
standards. In the United States, USCG should incorporate these mini­
mum standards into their Certificate of Adequacy (COA) program
and should encourage ports to provide incentives to vessel operators
for discharging their waste ashore (page 63).
Integrated Solid Waste Management
Despite past recommendations and legislative mandates for collabora­
tion, there continues to be a legal disconnect and jurisdictional discontinu­
ity between solid waste management mandates afloat and ashore. There is
no coordination between the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976 (RCRA), which regulates U.S. waste management and disposal, and

OCR for page 1
SUMMARY
the shipboard solid waste management plans or port and terminal waste
management and COAs.
Recommendation: Specific performance standards should be devel­
oped by USCG in collaboration with EPA for COAs; approval of
port COAs should be conditioned on formal coordination between
ports and solid waste management systems based on the RCRA
waste management hierarchy and best management practices and
guidance developed by EPA. Performance standards and COA and
port discharge requirements should be based on an understanding
of the capacity and capabilities of vessel types and waste streams,
not just a hypothetical capability to handle wastes. The private
sector and nongovernmental organizations should be included as
partners in these efforts. EPA should work with state and local solid
waste management programs and port and terminal operators to
support a seamless connection and accountability for transfer of
ship­generated garbage into the terrestrial waste management sys­
tem (pages 78 and 79).
Managing Fishing Gear
While all maritime sectors contribute to ocean­based marine debris,
there has been growing concern about the contribution of fishing vessels
to this problem. Both DFG and FADs were specifically referenced in the
Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act of 2006 as sub­
jects for further review by this committee. DFG and abandoned FADs
fall under MARPOL Annex V (and corresponding domestic laws) and
fisheries management treaties and regulations. This overlap has compli­
cated implementation of measures to prevent and reduce these sources
of debris. Current regulations do not include accountability measures for
gear loss, and fishermen and fisheries management organizations have
few incentives and several disincentives to take responsibility for the
impacts and for cleanup. Inadequate port facilities and high disposal costs
are an impediment to the proper disposal of waste gear and DFG.
Overarching Recommendation: MARPOL Annex V (and correspond­
ing domestic law) and international and domestic fisheries treaties
and regulations should be revised to clearly identify and prohibit
preventable losses of fishing gear, including FADs. IMO, fisheries
management councils and organizations, and other relevant entities
should incorporate gear accountability measures and facilitate proper
disposal of fishing gear, including FADs (page 140).

OCR for page 1
0 TACKLING MARINE DEBRIS IN THE ST CENTURY
Regulatory Structure
MARPOL Annex V does not adequately manage discharges of fishing
gear into the marine environment. The exemption for “the accidental loss
of synthetic fishing nets, provided that all reasonable precautions have
been taken to prevent such loss,” does not provide sufficient guidance
to regulators and the fishing industry. Moreover, because of minimum
length and gross tonnage exemptions, MARPOL Annex V does not apply
to a substantial number of fishing vessels; therefore, these vessels are
exempt from many requirements that would facilitate enforcement of
prohibitions against the at­sea disposal of synthetic fishing gear.
Recommendation: The U.S. delegation should exercise its influence
in the correspondence group and on IMO’s Marine Environment Pro­
tection Committee to amend MARPOL Annex V to provide explicit
definitions of “accidental losses” and “reasonable precautions” with
respect to synthetic fishing nets; require placards, garbage manage­
ment plans, and record books for all commercial, artisanal, and sport
fishing charter vessels to the extent practicable; and require additional
practices that minimize the probability of loss and maximize the prob­
ability of recovery of fishing gear from the ocean (page 102).
USCG and NOAA have rulemaking authority to prevent the genera­
tion of DFG under their respective legislative mandates, yet neither has
exercised that authority.
Recommendation: Congress should direct USCG and NOAA to
undertake a joint rulemaking to develop rules that require commer­
cial and recreational fishing vessels to properly dispose of all waste
fishing gear and to take specific precautions to prevent accidental loss
of fishing gear (page 106).
There has been confusion over the legal status of FADs in relation
to marine debris. However, under MARPOL and Annex V definitions,
FADs become DFG when the captain of the vessel that last deployed the
FAD decides not to retrieve it. This constitutes an illegal disposal under
MARPOL Annex V and the U.S. Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships
(APPS) if the FAD includes synthetic ropes, webbing, or other plastics.
Recommendation: NOAA should modify the federal regulations
for U.S. tuna purse seine vessels to clarify the circumstances under
which FADs become illegal discharges. Within international legal
frameworks, the United States should encourage IMO and Regional
Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) to provide similarly

OCR for page 1
SUMMARY
explicit definitions of “accidental losses” and “reasonable precautions”
to clarify the circumstances under which FADs constitute illegal dis­
charges of marine debris. RFMOs should devise regulations to exert
greater control on the use, deployment, and retrieval of FADs to
reduce the potential for FADs to become DFG. RFMOs should hold
fishing fleets, nations, or the collection of all RFMO­licensed ves­
sels responsible for retrieving all deployed FADs and should apply
accountability measures such as loss of fishing privileges in RFMO
waters. In turn, nations could potentially require retrieval of FADs by
the vessel or fleet. In the United States, USCG should amend regula­
tions implementing APPS to meet the intent of MARPOL Annex V and
ensure that vessels fishing within U.S. waters and U.S. vessels fishing
anywhere are held accountable to these standards (page 125).
Fisheries Management
The Magnuson­Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act
(MSFCMA)—the primary law governing U.S. fisheries management—
does not highlight the need to reduce DFG or other fishery­related marine
debris nor does it contain a national standard to address DFG or other
marine debris. Although some Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) cur­
rently include measures that may have a collateral benefit of reducing DFG,
current FMPs do not include measures that specifically address DFG.
Recommendation: Congress should add a national standard to
MSFCMA that fishery conservation and management measures shall
be designed to minimize the risk of gear loss. NOAA should estab­
lish a timetable for review of all existing FMPs for opportunities
to reduce fishing­related marine debris, including reducing gear,
minimizing gear loss, and minimizing impacts of lost gear, and to
improve gear marking and recovery. Measures that reduce the loss
or abandonment of fishing gear and encourage the retrieval of DFG
should be considered in all future FMPs, National Environmental
Policy Act documents, and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section
7 consultations and biological opinions. NOAA should encourage
adoption of these measures by fisheries management organizations
at the regional, state, and international levels. NOAA should also
expand the duties of observers to include documentation of gear
loss (page 115).
DFG has the potential to negatively impact endangered and protected
species. For those fisheries that generate DFG that harms endangered and
protected species, NOAA has the authority under ESA and the Marine

OCR for page 1
TACKLING MARINE DEBRIS IN THE ST CENTURY
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to require fishing gear accountability
measures.
Recommendation: NOAA should determine which endangered and
protected marine wildlife species or populations are at risk in part
from DFG based on a review of all available information on fisheries
interactions with these species, include information on injury and
deaths due to DFG or other fishing­related marine debris in its marine
mammal stock assessments and recovery plans and status reports for
other threatened and endangered species, and use the provisions of
ESA and MMPA to require adoption of gear accountability and other
measures to minimize or remove DFG for fisheries that generate
DFG that poses an entanglement threat to endangered and protected
marine wildlife (page 116).
Currently, there is very little control or data on FADs in international
fisheries. Replacement of plastic components and synthetic ropes and
webbing used to construct FADs with readily degradable materials such
as natural fibers would lessen the adverse impacts of FADs that become
marine debris.
Recommendation: The United States should take a leadership role by
requiring that its own purse seine fleet submit a FAD management
plan, encouraging RFMOs to adopt requirements for FAD manage­
ment plans, and using port state jurisdiction in its territories to limit
access to vessels flying the flag of countries that fail to require their
vessels have a FAD management plan. RFMOs should control the
number of FADs through chips, marking, tags, or other means to
limit the number of FADs that can be carried and deployed by a ves­
sel; acquire more information to characterize FAD usage in each of
the agreement areas; adopt resolutions requiring parties to provide
information on FAD use by vessel, including the number of sets on
FADs, the number of FADs carried and deployed, and FAD retrieval,
loss, and appropriation rates; and establish mechanisms to gather
information on FADs including reports from parties, vessel logbooks,
and observer programs. At a minimum, RFMOs need to collect and
report annual data on the number of FADs deployed, the number
returned to shore, the number lost, and an annual estimate of the
number currently being fished. RFMOS should support the develop­
ment of FAD designs that do not incorporate persistent synthetic or
scrap materials but instead include materials that will self­destruct,
readily biodegrade, mitigate entanglement, and provide an incentive
for FADs to be maintained and regularly retrieved. RFMOs should

OCR for page 1
SUMMARY
also prevent the use of synthetic and scrap material in FADs through
regulation (pages 138 and 139).
International Cooperation
Because DFG persists and can be transported long distances, parties
that generate DFG may not be the ones that bear the effects of it. Increased
awareness and participation by responsible parties is necessary to effec­
tively address the DFG problem.
Recommendation: All parties responsible for the generation of DFG
should be involved in prevention and cleanup. Measures to prevent
and reduce DFG will require international coordination and coop­
eration. NOAA, the U.S. Department of State, international fisheries
management organizations, and other relevant organizations should
engage in technology transfer and capacity building with nations
from which DFG components originate to improve implementation
of MARPOL Annex V in fisheries; encourage best practices to reduce
gear loss, support recycling of used fishing gear, and promote retrieval
of snagged or lost gear; and facilitate the participation of representa­
tives from nations from which DFG components originate in DFG
survey and removal efforts (page 92).
Gear Marking
Prevention of DFG begins at the source, but identifying the source
may be difficult because ocean currents can transport DFG a long distance
from the site of loss or discard and can involve substantial time lags. Effec­
tive gear marking is critical for identification of the sources of DFG and
the fisheries that may have deployed this gear.
Recommendation: NOAA should convene a workshop to explore
innovative and cost­effective approaches for identification or marking
of trawls, seines, gillnets, longlines, and FADs to foster gear identifica­
tion. Based on this information, NOAA should develop gear marking
protocols that can be used in domestic and international fisheries to
provide a structured basis for designing programs to reduce gear loss
and abandonment and increase recovery of DFG (page 116).
Gear Loss, Recovery, and Disposal
Fishing is inherently hazardous and, of a necessity, entails some risk
of gear loss despite all reasonable precautions. Because it is difficult for

OCR for page 1
TACKLING MARINE DEBRIS IN THE ST CENTURY
enforcement agencies to clearly differentiate between willful, preventable,
and unpreventable gear losses, enforcement of a strict liability for gear
losses would be problematic and could lead fishermen to underreport
losses or obscure the location of gear losses.
Recommendation: Fishery management organizations, if they adopt
gear loss reporting and other accountability measures, should adopt
a “no fault” policy regarding the documentation and recovery of lost
fishing gear. Under this policy, local fishermen, state officials, and the
public should work together to develop cost­effective DFG removal
and disposal programs. These programs could be subsidized through
user fees; a tax or deposit on trap tags, permits, or gear; public and
private grants; or mitigation banking. Fishermen participating in
removal efforts could receive financial credit, or at least be exempted
from landfill tipping fees (page 118).
The high costs and difficulty in providing adequate reception facili­
ties, particularly in remote areas, discourages proper disposal of used
fishing gear and can also be a disincentive to DFG retrieval.
Recommendation: The actual ability to receive used fishing gear
and DFG should be incorporated into minimum standards in the
assessment criteria for USCG COAs for port reception facilities. EPA,
NOAA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in cooperation with
the fishing industry, ports, and fishery managers, should help fishing
communities explore alternative strategies and technologies for man­
agement, disposal, and recycling of used and recovered DFG. IMDCC
and the NOAA Marine Debris Program should consider expanding
the marine debris cleanup grants program to help offset the disposal
costs for recovered DFG. Consideration should be given to dropping
the 50 percent match requirement for DFG recovery and disposal
programs, particularly for small remote communities (page 119).
Some legal frameworks discourage or prevent the retrieval of DFG.
In the United States, recovery of DFG may be inhibited by prohibitions
against tampering with abandoned gear, the application of cabotage laws
and burdensome certification requirements for vessels that transport DFG,
and fishery regulations that prohibit vessels from carrying gear that is not
a gear type permitted under their license endorsement.
Recommendation: USCG should work with other federal agencies,
state officials, fishermen, and the public to revise regulations that
inhibit the removal of DFG (page 121).

OCR for page 1
SUMMARY
It is immaterial whether the litter and other debris scattered along
the shoreline or entangling marine animals was discarded from a vessel
or discharged from a storm drain or whether or not the discharge was
legally permitted. Although this report is focused on ocean­based debris
sources, meaningful solutions will have to address the entire marine
debris problem: the manufacture of materials that may become debris,
the processes whereby debris is transported to the ocean, the organization
of waste management and disposal systems, and the cleanup and reme­
diation of regions that are impaired by marine debris. Progress will also
require sustained funding and institutional support for the prevention
and removal of marine debris. Even though the marine debris problem is
international in scope, much could be done at the national, regional, state,
and local levels. The United States, as a nation, can stop fouling its waters
and the high seas and, in so doing, serve as a paragon for stewardship of
the planet’s defining ecosystem, the sea.

OCR for page 1

Bookmark this page

Important Notice

As of 2013, the National Science Education Standards have been replaced by the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), available as a print book, free PDF download, and online with our OpenBook platform.